Woman awarded £150k pay-out for 'completely unnecessary' vaginal reconstruction surgery

Published date25 June 2021
Date25 June 2021
Publication titleDaily Record, The / Sunday Mail: Web Edition Articles (Scotland)
The woman who does not wish to be named was in her 40s at the time of theand as a result was unable to pass urine normally or enjoy sex, which impacted on her marriage.

She suffered with an "inflammatory condition" and was offered surgery by the consultant who was working for theNHSat Hull Royal Infirmary, when she should have been treated with moisturisers.

The woman agreed to the surgery and she underwent the procedure privately at the Spire Hospital in Anlaby,Hull Livereported.

No admissions of negligence were made by the surgeon, who has not been named, but legal representatives from Hull law firm Hudgell Solicitors secured a £150,000 out of court settlement for the woman, which was taken directly against the surgeon, and not either of the hospitals.

Scot thug punched, kicked and spat at cabin crew in sectarian tirade on board flight to Turkey

Hudgell Solicitors claims ‘radical’ surgery was instead carried out when the woman should have been referred to a specialist clinic, as recommended in the 2014 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) accredited guidelines.

It was alleged that a biopsy had shown no sign of cancer, and that treatments such as moisturisers should have been used to treat the condition, which had been worsening around the woman’s genital area.

Solicitor Michelle Tebbutt, of Hudgell Solicitors said: “Our client had previously been seen by another consultant who had reported no sign of malignancy on a biopsy and concluded that a superficial vulvectomy was not required.

Son of notorious Scots gangster on the run as cops warn public not to approach him

“However, when she saw a second consultant at Hull Royal Infirmary some weeks later and asked about surgery, that surgeon indicated that all conservative medical measures had been exhausted, which was incorrect.

“He had a duty of care to decline to undertake the surgery and to outline the reasons why. It was our case that he should have advised her that not only was such surgery going to cosmetically alter her, but that it would also not have cured her condition.

“Given the wrong advice she decided to have the surgery and go private. She had the operation which the surgeon carried out at a local private...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT